About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmeerch her separation is outrageous and, you know, we're after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in mbenbenghazi and ha to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have. and we'll continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation and all that information will be discorged to congress. i don't think there's a debate in this country with four americans killed that's a problem. we have to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't get any debate from me on that. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america, in the capacity, the state d
of the u.n. security council last night. sift through this for us. how big is this? how significant is this in the middle east right now? >> well, it's big for lots of reasons, because it's not happening in isolation. one is you have the largest military clashes between israel and hamas in, what, four year now, and it's not going to stop. at times it doesn't matter in the middle east exactly why things begin. over the last few months there have been hundreds of rocket attacks, now this, then retaliation. it just happens. second of all, it's happening in the absence of anything political. there's no dialogue going on whatsoever between israelis and palestinians. this can't substitute for this. thirdly, egyptians withdrew their ambassador. since 1967 and really since not long after that when sadat, the relationship has been peaceful. it's been codified by treaty. it is the basis of peace in the middle east to the extent it exists at all. what this shows is we can no longer take that for granted. now that you've had the political change in egypt, you can't insulate these things. they'r
was real. and fema is not building concentration camps. and un election observers are not taking over texas. and moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism. listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. and the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. they both propose possible solutions to our real problems. and we debate between those possible solutions. and by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. that competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. and the if the republican party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is snuck in a
people are talking about is who is going to replace hillary clinton. the two names who have voted is u.n. ambassador susan rice and john kerry. i have no problem with susan rice. i think she's fantastic and unfortunate how she's been treated recently. i tell you, john kerry during this campaign has been fantastic in his debate prep with the president. i thought his speech as the dp nc was brilliant, and i think he would be a terrific diplomat. there's concerns that if he was nominated then the senate -- his senate seat would be open and scott brown could have another shot at getting into the senate. i don't think that would be the worst thing in the world for the president, especially since we picked up seats this time around. scott brown, as a republican who may actually across the aisle, could actually serve as a useful political tool for the president. that will be interesting to watch. the other one, of course, is treasury secretary time geithner leaving. one of the outside names that's been floated is cheryl sandberg, coo of facebook. she's the first one and she's had a terrific cho
are john kerry and u.n. ambassador susan rice, who has been caught up in the questions about benghazi. so if hillary clinton does leave, does that put more pressure on the president to go in a different direction other than susan rice? >> well, i'm only speculating now, because my reporting on this dates back to well before the election when i got a little bit focused there. i will say that if you talk to people in democratic establishment and political establishment on the hill and in national security circles, you do find that neither of those candidates is seen right now as a perfect choice. there are drawbacks to both of them. ambassador rice has a lot of supporters first and foremost, the president to be sure. controversy over her public statements about benghazi give people pause about whether she's the right person with a confirmation process over, whether she's the right person for the job. in the case of senator kerry, there's doubts from some people about whether he'd be the perfect secretary of state. he was passed over four years ago for secretary clinton. if you took him out
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6